I’m confused;
“Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and for the following reasons,
the Court will grant summary judgment to the defendant on the issue of whether
APCP is an explosive, will grant summary judgment to the plaintiff on the
validity of the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs
because this pronouncement fails to comply with notice-and-comment rulemaking,
and will stay a ruling on counts four and five pending the completion of
previously initiated notice-and-comment rulemaking.”
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2470169/tripoli-rocketry-assn-inc-v-us-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and/
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x1004 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Terry McCreary
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 3:14 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Making composite APCP in Australia
I was incorrect, the document submitted by BATFE was not 1000 pages; it was
2189 pages long (I found the copy on my HDD). Most of it appeared to be CFR,
the Orange Book, and other public domain material, relatively little actually
related to the case itself.
Best -- Terry
On 7/6/2020 11:55 AM, Tyler Adkison wrote:
I think some of those statements may have been a bit hyperbolic. Others know
far more than I do, but I think that in a nutshell the ATF did this bit of
creative BS: the defined burned rate for APCP as the length of the grain (not
web thickness!)/burn time resulting in nonsensical burn rates. Then they said
something along the lines of that a certain type of fuse is considered an
explosive and it burns at x rate, and if you use their madness of a burn rate,
APCP has a higher number than that fuse, so it must be an explosive too. If I
tried to use that argument on a college paper, I would have failed it, and
luckily sanity eventually prevailed and the ATF lost this case too.
While legal documents are often unnecessarily long, it most likely was not
literally 1000 pages or longer, but I am sure it felt like that to anyone who
would have to read through it.
-Tyler
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 8:19 AM Bruce Beck <bbeck7@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:bbeck7@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Terry:Do you have a reference or link to the '1000 page document' of proof
mentioned?
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 7:46 AM Joshua Carr <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Hi Terry,
The next step I am about to take is to purchase your book from
aeroconsystems.com <http://aeroconsystems.com> .
Is this the best place to buy it?
Also, I would like to ask your opinion on something, I hope you don't mind.
Given your chemistry background, do you have any recommendations for
understanding ignition and chemical reactions?
After a lot of reading (and a uni course or two) I still haven't found a decent
explanation of what is happening at the fundamental level.
The same is the case for binders and diisocyanate or curing agents ect.
I have learnt a bit about this process, such as bond types, from expanding foam
and rubber making.
But it seems a lot of books on rocketry leave these things out.
Anyway just a thought of mine, if you are reading thanks for your time and hope
to speak again soon.
Kind regards,
Joshua Carr
---- On Fri, 29 May 2020 00:19:56 +0930 Terry McCreary
<tmccreary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tmccreary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote ----
Hello Joshua and the rest of the list, I was on the TRA BoD during most of the
BATFE lawsuit. If memory serves (sometimes it doesn't anymore...:-\) that suit
consumed a bit more than two-thirds of a million dollars over a 10+ year
period.
Initially Judge Reggie Walton ruled that BATFE had deference to classify (as an
explosive) virtually any material they chose. TRA+NAR appealed, the appeals
court didn't buy the "due-deference" argument, and the suit went back to Walton.
At some point BATFE decided that the burn rate of safety fuse was a guide to
classification; anything that burned faster than that was to be classified as
an explosive. A 1000+ page document was submitted, "proving" that APCP burned
at tens of meters/second and was therefore an explosive.**
TRA+NAR provided just a couple dozen pages which included citations from actual
peer-reviewed publications by actual rocket scientists. Within those
publications were some ballistic properties of a few hundred propellant
mixtures, most having burn rates @1000 psi on the order of 1 cm/s, and none
exceeding about 3 cm/s.
Following Judge Walton's ruling in favor of TRA+NAR, a request for recovery of
fees was made. The amount recovered was well under $100K... oh well, we WON!!
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2400163/tripoli-rocketry-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco/?
Best -- Terry
**BATFE's legal team apparently went to the W.C. Field's School of Law and
Heavy Machinery Operation: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle
them with bulls++t." And somewhere in their submitted document was
proof...that if a rocket motor was clamped tightly enough to a steel rod, upon
ignition the case would rupture and undergo RSD---rapid spontaneous
disassembly. ;-)
On 5/27/2020 10:34 PM, Joshua Carr wrote:
In Australia we need a full on explosives license to do what you fellas in the
USA take for granted.
Sure Tripoli and the rest of you guys went to fight for APCP a while back, but
it would be great to share some wisdom to us Aussies down under (the industry
ain't exactly booming here).
Regards,
Joshua Carr
--
Dr. Terry McCreary
Professor Emeritus
Murray State University
Murray KY 42071
--
Dr. Terry McCreary
Professor Emeritus
Murray State University
Murray KY 42071
Attachment:
image001.png
Description: